The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Continued from page 2

Rick Santorum’s campaign had raised the least out of the current Republican candidates through 2011, just under $2.2 million, giving Romney a 28-1 fundraising advantage. But the pro-Santorum super PAC, Red, White and Blue Fund, spent over $240,000 in the days leading up to the February 7th primaries in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri, helping Santorum sweep all three races.

What is even more concerning than how much money the super PACs are spending is that most of that funding has come from a very small number of individuals and organizations. This makes small contributions from large numbers of Americans largely irrelevant, and multiplies the influence that the wealthiest Americans have over our political system.

Indeed, super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years, and about half has come from fewer than 200 wealthy people. Further, 93% of the contributions raised by super PACs were $10,000 or more, with more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave $500,000 or more.

Not surprisingly, the American people are very unhappy with the super PACs and their influence on our political system. According to a survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 62% of voters oppose the Court’s Citizens United ruling. And over three-quarters say they would like candidates to make campaign finance reform a “key” issue in 2012.

The GQRR also poll found the majority of voters across the aisle – Republicans, Democrats and independents – all agree with the following statement: “Given what I see in the presidential race, I am fed up with big donors and secret money that controls which candidate we hear about. It undermines democracy.”

And the latest New York Times/CBS poll found similar voter sentiment regarding outside spending. The poll found that two-thirds of respondents favor limiting ad spending by outside groups.

The detrimental impact and corruption of super PACs on the American political system cannot be understated. Candidates no longer need to persuade future constituents to donate to their campaign because they believe in that candidate's leadership. Instead, candidates focus on convincing a few extremely rich Americans that their interests will be attended to if the candidate wins. Make no mistake – expectations of advantageous policy positions come along with multi-figure checks.

It is a shame that such a small number of our political leaders are willing to take a stand against such deceptive fundraising practices. Such methods directly diminish the resiliency of our country’s political system.